From owner-freebsd-net Mon Jul 24 15: 5:59 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail.interware.hu (mail.interware.hu [195.70.32.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C394737BC34 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:05:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from bissau-32.budapest.interware.hu ([195.70.53.160] helo=jules.elischer.org) by mail.interware.hu with smtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 13GqM4-0003qr-00; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:05:44 +0200 Message-ID: <397CBD99.2781E494@elischer.org> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:05:13 -0700 From: Julian Elischer X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (X11; I; FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: net@freebsd.org Cc: m_evmenkin@yahoo.com Subject: Tap driver. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I am slightly curious why the 'tap' driver was written. It seems to duplicate the 'tun' driver to a large extent. It could also be implemeted pretty easily with the netgraph interface type. Certainly it might have been easier to add the extra bells and whistles to one of these existing pseudo-interfaces than to rewrite and add a third... In fact I was considering whether the tun device could go away and be implemented using negraph.. It would give the opportunity of having arbitrary in-kernel processing of packets being received and sent. -- __--_|\ Julian Elischer / \ julian@elischer.org ( OZ ) World tour 2000 ;_.---._/ presently in: Budapest v To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message